New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1887-01-09
Mr. RICHMOND CAN'T SEE THE NLNUTE&
RECORDER sMYTH DECIDES AGAINST THE FORMER
BROADWAY SURFACE PRESIDENT

RECORDER sMYTH DECIDES AGAINST THE FORMER
BROADWAY SURFACE PRESIDENT.
Recorder smyths decision the motion made by tho
lawyers James A. Richmond and Jacob Sharp for
opportunity to inspect the minutes Of the Grand Jury
was filed yesterday In the clerks Office Of
the Court of General Sessions. The motion
was made on behalf Of both OF the de-
fendants but Albert stckney, Jacob sharps lawyer.
withdrew from the argument which was made by Will
lam Fullerton and Frank Dupignac for Mr.. Richmond.
DistrictAttorney MARITIME read i'll answer affidavit In
which he said that the of all the witnesses before
tho Grand Jury had been indorscd on the back OF
tho indictment He told OF the relations OF several
OF the witnesses to the Broadway Surface Railroad
company and said that the other witnesses had testified
before the Senate Committee and at the trials Of Jaehne
and McQuade
The Recorder In the opinion in which he gives the rca
sons for his decision reces the grounds on which tho
application asked for which principally that tho
defendant knew Of bribery that he could not imagine
what evidence could be given to connect him win mo
matter and that he did not know from the names OF tno
witnesses wnat 81 a ses before the senate
Committee The opinion continues;
1t is matter OF public notoriety that The evidence
taken bcfo committee printed as pubic docu-
ment and referred TO by counsel on the trials OF sew
vcral persons concerning the relations existing between
the defendant and the witnesses OF the people ana MS
terest president OF the railway company III the sece
of the investigation by the senate e2Ie Sei ,bs
defendant can easily derive all the informar
ton he seeks IN his appHcauOn Dy sechinE Hon uso
persons who examined before the Grand jury no
ha, moi already done so and by consulting the minutes OF
the Senate Committee which can easily DC obtained no
can without res0rtipgto the Court 10 aid him III obtaining
the information he seeks by the application nc must do
so before he can invoke the aid OF court t Whetner
cses from witnesses named In the Indictment vol
UNFAIRLY know OF no authority statutory OF otherwlse
nor has any been cited by the defendants counsel
authorizing the Court 10 compel the Dsu'es
his counsel the testimony OF tho peoples
wnesse. or the minutes or the Grand jury TOT any Pur
nose other than to enable him 10 move 10 set aside te p
dctment for permitted oy tnc sttu'c
izin the granting such relief Ana Detoc ne Is chlSu
IN ch relief he must present facts establishing us sns
thereto aud this he has failed 10 DO upon ths apeao.
lie Is NOT entitled by any rule either or law or paeuce,
that am aware Of in either civil or criminal aSuo,
compe his adversary tosubmit FOR Ills Inspection ,c
nonv OF his wtne merely for the purpose OF ihcer
tnninc what that testimony is and especially when As
in this case there reason ID DeneNc nc may 10
has NOT already Informed himself as to what the tesu
mony he seeks TO Inspect. >,,.o, sovo,,h An
The case OF the People versus Nanghton seventh Az,
botts reports United States. Al does NOT sustain uo
claim of the defendants counsel IL was heu III ,at Ss
thot the Court may direct list OF the witnesses
hefore the Grand Jury 10 be furnished 10 the
anv examination OF the minutes OF the 1r"nu jury my
Hs owed Ia the accused a OF irregariiy IN the
proceedings affecting the indictment tAe apphSa@on @
must be founded upon irregularities or the "iand 'u5
which the defendant eutted 10 take ADVANTAGE or
nm the necessity for the production OF the mhu'es '
that purpose, to enable him 10 prepare ior ulsai,
a. before stated list OF the witnesses has been otssa
unon The Indictment pursuant to the rcquliee ". .o
code of civil procedure and IN this way the ss
heen furnished with their names. NO iriegnai'y III ,no
before the Grand jury anectng tie lnsS
uept is alleged In the defendants moving paper aua
sch suggestion was uade the argument forthe rear
sons stal ed IL follows the defendants appcauoI
must be denied